RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Media "Watchmen" movie coming soon!!

Yeah, cause Warners handed it them free of charge.

he also is wrong about distribution. Paramount did indeed win foreign distribution of Watchmen this doesn't mean that WB doesn't get any proceeds. Paramount has both foreign and domestic distribution rights for Marvel films, are we to believe that Marvel doesn't collect a penny? If g-man would research a little better he would understand distributors get a percentage of the take.

But once again, he doesnt think DVD sales & tv showings count when it comes to profit.

And that's to say nothing of the money acquired from deals when it finally airs on television.

You cant expect him to read more than 3/4 of a post.

Okay, okay, losses, profit, who gives a fuck? My entire point was that, given an urge to continue the marketing said franchise...and given an unnatural story angle for a sequel (i.e. Minutemen?)...it might be beneficial to look into a cable miniseries as such. I mean hell, if they can make a show as "epic" as ROME for HBO, I don't see Watchmen being that big of budget leap...

Actually, I'm pretty sure that HBO cancelled Rome precisely because it was so expensive to produce (however, I don't know why they didn't realize that--as with everything in Nowie's version of Hollywood--it would magically turn a profit through DVD sales). Same with Carnivale. So I don't know if they'd be interested in a Watchmen mini.

I'm with Pro on this one. Rome got shit canned because of budget concerns, but you really wouldn't have that problem with Watchmen. Rome was expected by the producers and such to go longer than two seasons. With Watchmen, you could just make a twelve part series. Expensive in the short run, maybe. But, definitely worth it in the long run if done well.

Don't get me wrong. I've long thought an HBO limited series was a better way to go with Watchmen (and Preacher and Sandman, BTW). Unfortunately, however, that ship sailed and, given HBO's recent track record I just don't see it happening for any Vertigo-type series, especially given the perception that Watchmen was a failure.

the whole "they'd be smart if they did this" argument always seems faulty to me. that's going by the assumption that quality equals profit - and, to a more myopic degree, that quality to you equals money [for them]

warner could put on the greatest watchmen retelling, evar, over a 12-episode HBO run, meet every message board critique they could encounter (mystically managing to stick exactly to the script of the comics, without actually sticking to the script of the comics). rave reviews does not guarantee a success.

they spent a brazillion dollars making and promoting "dark knight", and that worked in spades. why? maybe just cuz "batman" was in it. or maybe cuz it was friggin awesome. maybe a nice combo of the two. maybe it really was because they killed an actor to improve the reaction. who knows, lightning in a bottle.

but there have been equally expensive films (or projects), and equally well-made films (or projects), that have tanked. if memory serves, far moreso.

Assuming that was in response to me, I reply:

I am in no suggesting it would be an automatic win-20/20. I was merely pointing out an unexplored, perfectly valid, and possibly profitable avenue for the franchise. A created sequel would/will be awkward, so the way to milk this thing is limited to a degree. Sure, you could make the Watchmen Pals cartoon (as seen on YouTube). But, I wouldn't. And understand, I'm totally for them doing nothing at all, and leave the dead horse alone. But, you know they will. Marketing-Zombies are one of the key constants in physics. Given it's a certainty that TW/AOL is going to rape the Watchmen corpse at least one more time, I'd rather the effort be spent in something positive. Like a quality HBO miniseries. Nerd conundrums welcome...

t'was a response for all to share, no direction intended.

as for the future plans? who knows. if there are any, i actually see much more value in creating a sequel/prequel than retelling 50-75% of the story in a smaller format.

sure, the non-cannon story might upset, to the point of blood tears, a few hundred fanboys (or be generous and say thousand?) but it's not them that make these movies a financial success, its the mainstream audience. and, i think its a fairly safe bet that 90% or more of the folks who saw the movie never heard of the watchmen before, and were just riding high from the "holy fuck superheroes are cool" buzz that dark knight and iron man left in their wake. to them, it need not be deferential to the books. and, quite frankly, i'd include myself in that notion, as i tend to prefer seeing a movie i haven't already read.

...not that i look forward to the specific "rorschach-as-white rapper" mid 1990s sequel that is certainly already being dreamed up as an option. well, maybe a little.

"....this city smells of rotten meat...
...this city's lost its beat...
...I throw the mic to my boy the N-to-the-Owl...
...while I lay down some scratch..."

{sound of turntable remix of "All Along the Watchower", the last sound many of the more obsessive fans hear, and the last thing that goes through their mind, besides the bullet, is how the hell they ever cast 'DJ Ghostdog' as Doctor Hoboken}

I just watched the director's cut today and, without having seen the theatrical version, I have to say it was one of the most faithful adaptations, comic or novel or what have you, I've ever seen. It was very good. The only problem I had was the change from the comics of Ozy's exuberant "I did it!"; however, that makes sense considering the tone of his "I've visualized all 15 million" speech.

I look at it this way: you don't have to be completely faithful to the source material, as long as you respect the core idea. Not because the fanboys will get mad, but because the core idea is what made the work succesfull in the first place (assuming this is lasting work like Watchmen and not a book that sold 10 million copies thanks to a boob shot and was forgotten the next day). An idea that works and resonates with people is like a very delicate equation, not to be messed with. Stray from what makes this character/concept/whatever "tick" and the whole thing goes to hell.

In this case, I can't think of a way to make a sequel that doesn't betray what the original was about. Then again, someone found a way to reboot a convulted franchise like Star Trek without making its dedicated fans feel like what they saw before doesn't matter, so I guess anything's possible.

robs blog 2! now theres a sequel!

The fact of the matter is that Hollywood is a business first and foremost. To expect them to do something that won't make them a profit or for them to forgo an idea that will simply because it doesn't meet with your 'artistic' take is plain silly. DC is going to keep milking the various trade editions because it equals big money. Warner Bros. is probably going to skip any additional Watchmen ideas because it's not making enough for them to justify it (given that they're having to kick back almost 10% to Fox). I'd have preferred the HBO miniseries concept to begin with, but I think the movie was damned good and had a good grasp of the material while not copying it 100%. Doing a miniseries now would just be stupid. Why would people watch a re-shot, longer version of a movie that they just saw or passed up seeing in the theaters? Personally, I think this movie is going to become a cult favorite, earning more in special edition DVD sales as to have the studio come out with a new version every couple of years or so much like the Evil Dead trilogy.

in 3-D!!!!!

Yep, yep and yep. As I mentioned back when the film first came out, I could see this turning into a cult film or even another "Blade Runner" where (even if it's never a financial success) people come to see it as a classic before its time.

You are retarded.
Do you think DVD sales dont make profit?
Go back and look at those figures, not your magical "it needs to do twice its budget to turn a profit".
Fact is, if the budget for Watchmen was $100mil and its already done $7mil more than that, DVD sales WILL up the profits. (plus the overseas, which no matter who distributes it, Warners get a cut of).

Simple fact is, do you think that films like the already mentioned Blade Runner and Blues brothers have not now made a profit with all the DVD/VHS sales and tv showings.

You live in a fantasy world that says that if something does more than its budget, no matter how small, it hasnt made a profit.

Its simple math.
If you buy something for a dollar and sell it for five dollars, you have made a profit.
If you sell it for $5.01, you have still made a profit, albeit a smaller one.

As basams has said, the line you continually quote about a film needing to make double its budget to turn a profit, has been proven a lie in court.
Or are you suggesting that courts are shit, and so are the people who practice their job in them?

Do you think they always do?

Batman Begins was a box office flop as it didnt do double its budget at the US theatres.
-G-Man

You do realise that theres a reason that even the big studios do straight to DVD movies doncha?

Plus according to you, the animated DC DVDs that sold barely anything, were profit makers.

This is a film thats done time at the cinemas, so anything it does on DVD is going to be a bonus, as the budget for DVDs is far less.

So you DO think that all DVDs are profitable. Got it.

They must not have remainder bins over in the UK.

Rorsikkbones???

Yes, all DVDs for the most part are profitable, with a few exceptions.
All DVDs get discounted after their sales dwindle....thats ALL DVDs.

I could go and pick up a copy of Transformers on DVD now for probably £5 or so, nearly a third of the price it came out for.
Does that mean its not made a profit?
Cause as of July 12th, in the USA alone, that DVD had made over $282mil.
But of course, it must have been a flop cause its been reduced in price.

You really dont know anything about retail, do you.

$3.99 for 12 cents worth of time and material.

Give or take a little.

It's like the Jerk, you take in five dollars and all you have lost is a 5 cent eraser and a 10 cent ashtray.

Even when you loose you win.

I understand that, while many movies make money, not every film or DVD is profitable. You seem to think everything makes a profit.

Look, Nowie, it's okay for you to like a movie even if it didn't make a profit. You should be guided by your personal tastes and not worry about validation from the masses.

Its already made a profit, albeit a small one, so it will make a profit on DVD...simple math.
Not my fault you stick to a manufactured rule that says a film like Batman Begins didnt make a profit at theatres.

Source?

Or Return of the Jedi if you believe the studio.

Burton's Batman was the top grossing film of 1989. It sold very well in VHS and earned a good deal with its broadcasting deals. By the Hollywood creative accounting practices, it has never made a profit. Yet WB spun three direct sequels and an animated TV show off of it.

Also the merchandising juggernaut that accompanied it.

And the upsale of the Batman comics, including all the one shots etc.

Too bad DVD's never make money.

Yeah, what idiot said DVD's "never" make money? That's almost as silly as saying they "always" do.

Lucky that nobody said that then isnt it!

finally saw the movie this week. pretty good! i actually prefer the ending to the book. seems to fit better, provides a more ironic twist to the characters positions, and just doesn't seem as blunt as "and then aliens attacked."

i thought the soundtrack was horrible. not necessarily the selected songs, but how jarring and out-of-context they seemed. i also wasn't a fan of the faux nixon makeup, or anything relating to nite owl, as he seemed like a shit made-for-tv-movie actor. (e.g; *rorschach explodes*. nite owl: "nooo.")

yeah, i guess an extended miniseries would have been better for the 15 people it was important too, but i do think it got enough from the book to stand alone as a movie.